Skip to main content

About this Show

Washington Journal

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists.

NETWORK

DURATION
02:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 17 (141 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Washington 15, Us 15, Chuck Hagel 14, Pentagon 14, New York 14, Obama 10, Harry Reid 10, Iraq 8, Vietnam 8, Bobby Jindal 6, Chris Christie 6, U.s. 5, Kentucky 5, John Kerry 4, Barack Obama 4, Bill Kristol 4, Kristol 4, Paul Ryan 4, Obama Administration 4, Virginia 4,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Washington Journal    News/Business. Live morning call-in program with  
   government officials, political leaders, and journalists.  

    January 25, 2013
    7:00 - 9:00am EST  

7:00am
"washington journal" is next. >> general dempsey and i are pleased to announce that we are eliminating their direct combat exclusion role for women. we're moving forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary -- and necessary gender based limits to service. ♪ the announcement made official yesterday by outgoing defense secretary leon panetta, breaking down the barriers of women serving on the front lines of combat operations. good morning, it is friday, january 25. some other headlines -- "the
7:01am
huffington post," the senate agrees to filibuster changes. "the wall street journal," the president having an ex prosecutor having -- leading the sec. your calls, comments, and tweets on the announcement from the pentagon yesterday. 202 is the area code. give us a call -- join us on facebook at facebook.com/c-span2. let's begin with a look at one of the headlines this morning from "the new york times," a profile of a photographer in iraq.
7:02am
let me share with you a paragraph or two from "the new york times." -- we will share with you some more from the announcement yesterday at the pentagon. first, some of your calls. wilson joins us from little rock, arkansas.
7:03am
caller: even the women, even though they are just as brave in their bravery, there is no doubt about their bravery. the physical ability and stamina -- i am an ex-. tripper from the military -- ex- paratrooper from the military. training for women has gotten easier capri -- easier. women can be distracting for men as well. host: the orders to end combat exclusion, seeing that it will level the playing field in careers.
7:04am
brian on the republican line from wisconsin. welcome to the program. caller: glad i got a hold of you. first time on the program. i am 71 years old. i believe that women are capable of going into the military and serving in combat. also, i think we will have a lot of problems. i do not believe that men and women should serve together. there are different jokes, different things that go on. i think there'll be a lot of problems there. host: thank you. from inside the washington times --
7:05am
richard is joining us from inverness, florida, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am against this women in combat -- take for instance the woman in the navy. do you know how many women are discharged early because they become pregnant? i think it is idiotic. i have been in combat. i'm 85 years old. i can see a woman flying an airplane. the average woman in combat, i cannot see it. look at the trouble they are going to have. i do not know how to say this, but if woman has to relieve herself, what is she supposed to do with a bunch of men? what she is taken prisoner?
7:06am
you know a woman is going to be raped. why would anybody want to be in combat. this is ridiculous. thank you very much. host:, for the call. let me share a " -- thank you for the call. let me share with you a quote from jim inhofe -- again, that statement issued by oklahoma senator james in half. we will be talking more about it on this sunday with c-span -- on "newsmakers" program.
7:07am
mike from rockville, ky. good morning. -- kentucky. good morning. caller: is just an experiment. once they come back in body bags or maimed, i believe this experiment will be over. this is what it is. host: thank you for the call. secretary panetta said his thinking has devolved as he traveled over the last 18 months, travelling to iraq and afghanistan. he was a former enlisted man himself, 50 years ago, serving for two years as an army intelligence officer. bernard joins us from sarasota, florida. your reaction? caller: i think it is fine to lift the ban on women in combat. we keep going to war, and we
7:08am
keep spending money on wars. as long people foolish not to go to war and kill other people, and that is fine with me. i think it is just dumb. host: this is a quote from staff sargeant stacy spearsall -- next is nick joining us from peoria, illinois. on the independent line. caller: i have two sons in the military. neither of them are in military or -- infantry our combat units. they said the problem is, women do not have the physical strength. look at the body builders. they have to take steroids. my son in the marines, he is about 6 feet, 4 inches. he says, how is somebody going to carry me out? even in physical training, we
7:09am
do 30 pushups. women do 15. that does not make any sense. host: thank you for the culprit joining the defense secretary -- for the call. to and in the defense secretary was martin dempsey, the joint chiefs of staff. >> as we look at requirements for a spectrum of conflicts, not just counterinsurgency, we really in -- we really need standards that apply across all of those. it is important that if we do say that a standard is too high, the burden is on the service to explain to the secretary why is it that it is. it doesn't have to be that high? with the direct exclusion, that -- with the exclusion in place, we never had that conversation. >> can women serve in special
7:10am
operations, like navy seals? >> i will go back to what i have said since i been the chief of staff, what general ordin -- odierno said, i believe that there will be women who can meet the standards. host: general dempsey yesterday at the pentagon. this headline -- there is this from just ramirez on our twitter page -- back to your calls. pentagon lifting the ban on women in combat. a democrat from kentucky. caller: i was watching the news yesterday, there was a lady who joined the marines in 1970, and she made it through the basics and her husband did not. she waited three years in the
7:11am
marines, and the marines is the hardest one there was. she said yesterday, there are as many men who cannot make it as there are women. the reason why they do not get their chance at -- 1500 have been killed in these past two wars over there. if they want to go, i see no reason for them not to go. host: thank you for the call. another part of this debate -- sexual harassment. according to dod, there were just over 3100 reports of sexual harassment in 2011, and a similar number in 2010, 3158. those figures are courtesy of d.o.t.. bill joins us from illinois, good morning to you. caller: i am a combat decorated veteran from vietnam.
7:12am
when i tell my story of my experiences in combat, the women psychiatrists and psychologists practically fall to their knees, and the menacing to be able to understand a little bit better. -- the men seem to tbe able to -- to be able to unserstand a little bit better. i find the need to suppress some of my experiences from vietnam, because women seem to treat me like an outcast. i do not feel like anybody should send women into combat because the aftermath, society -- i do not think you want women walking around with the same experiences that men have. host: without getting into too specific of detail, what are they reacting to? what experiences did go through in the 1970's or 1960's the -- in vietnam?
7:13am
caller: i was a sniper in vietnam. i cannot remember most of the combat experiences because i got addicted to eight or nine drugs. now that memories are coming back, it is horrible. it destroyed my life. i was engaged five times. you have to explain to your future spouse what you have in me -- in your mind. when i explained it, i was called everything from lt. callie to baby killer. it is not an experience i think we should expose women too. host: your final thought? caller: i hope people up there a way up and understand -- wake up and understand, it is not where you want to send your daughters,
7:14am
wives, the mills. -- females. host: the question we are asking, in case you're just tuning in, the pentagon announced yesterday, lifting the ban on women in combat operations. another headline we want to share with you from the front page of the "the washington times" -- at new york, which passed the strictest gun control law in the country, it was ranked fourth in the country by the british campaign, but it was also in the top-10 in terms of a firearm homicides in 2011 according to the fbi. in the meantime, north dakota was in the low range of it's firearm homicide rate. it has among the loosest gun laws in the country. the vice-president is treated -- traveling to richmond, virginia.
7:15am
he'll be joined by former governor and senator tim kane to discuss the obama administration's efforts to reduce gun violence. can -- tim ak -- kaine was the governor of virginia during the shootings at virginia tech back in 2007. also, there was an announcement yesterday by senator dianne feinstein, banning assault weapons. that is available on our web site at c-span.org. pentagon lifting the ban on women in combat. tom in ohio, what are your thoughts on all this? caller: there were some women suing the pentagon over the lack of being able to get into combat. the requirement for combat --
7:16am
they are using that to be promoted. the good old boy network, if you do not want women to advance, you require combat and you cannot let them go to combat. i think the timing is curious with a lawsuit being in court now. host: thank you for the call. date on the republican line, from new jersey. caller: one thing i wanted to point out. i think the gentleman earlier said he was a sniper in vietnam. he brings up some cogent points. i understand and appreciate a lot of what he is saying. i look at it slightly differently. a look at it more from the point -- i do feel that women should be given the role of offered combat capability. he might be able to correct me or assist me, but i think there was a congresswoman the other
7:17am
day, davenport, who said that she was in iraq and unfortunately lost two of her legs in combat. host: i think you're referring to tammy duckworth, from chicago, illinois. caller: she brought up a good point. her point was, there was going to be attrition of women that were going to start and work their way up into infantry. i thought that was a great idea. that way, military contract it and gets a metrics and how they are performing. -- can track it and get metrics and how they are performing. -- on how they are performing. psychologically, there typically able to disarm them a lot quicker. in a be able to gather other parts -- other types of soft intelligence other than hard intelligence.
7:18am
i do not think they are going to be so destructive from a gender- based standpoint. there have been some arguments that putting women in their will break the cubbies of bond between man and it will be disrupted. -- the cohesive bond between men sruptive.ll be di it may make them less rigid in when they are emotionally suffering. they may be able to connect look at better to a female. all that being said, i do feel that women may have the tactical mindset to add a little bit different value to the battlefield. host:, for adding your voice. the pentagon a lifting the ban on women in combat. bad idea? a good idea? the caller had a point, if women
7:19am
come back in body bags, maybe we will rethink going to war so quickly. on our facebook page -- --n this the pentagon reports that over 100 american women have been killed in this war and over 800 have been injured. one voice in all of this -- a piece written for the marine corps gazette -- she says as a combat experience female, i am here to tell you that we are not created all equal. any attempt will not improve the marine corps as the nation's national security. last july, she appeared on cnn.
7:20am
>> first off, women have been in combat for decades. i am not seeing that women do not have a role in combat. we do not fight a conventional enemy. there is not a front line anymore. what i am proposing is women in the infantry. >> essentially, what is the problem with women in the infantry? if ohlman can get through training, why can she not serve alongside fellow infantryman? >> it is an issue purses' cost and benefit. the cost will outweigh the benefit. it will not help the individual or the institution. we are a war footing institution. combat readiness is going to be affected by this. >> i read the piece that you wrote recently. it was very expensive. it was called "get over it, we are not all created equal." i know that you created the it -- the image of yourself, your
7:21am
abilities, the way he trained, the way you rank, and what it was like when you're on the front lines and how you managed. in a very short version, can you tell our viewers what went through and why you began to have this epiphany about yourself as a combat soldier and why you could extrapolate that to other women? >> there was a time five years ago, where i joined the marine corps, and i thought, heck, i am strong, a concern in the infantry. this last deployment hit home for me. i broke school records to being broken in a short amount of time. the last seven months of the planet, i lost 17 pounds. i had muscle atrophy. i lost estrogen. i was only doing a portion of what might infantry brethren were doing. my concern is that there is a lot of gender-specific medical conditions that we have not begun to identify. host: that was courtesy of cnn.
7:22am
this headline from the new york times -- let's take a look at countries that allow women to serve in the front lines. australia, canada, and denmark, as well as finland, germany, france, israel, japan, the netherlands, norway, poland, romania, sweden, and switzerland. these are countries that allow women to serve in close combat roles. the story from "the new york times" -- that.n read more from adamant joins us from north carolina. good morning. -- edmond joins us from north carolina. good morning. caller:, for taking my call. i am an army veteran, and we have a daughter serving overseas.
7:23am
she is stationed in italy right now. just like my wife, she is strong and everything, but i do not see her in combat roles. i'm not trying to down women at all. physically day in and day out, as the rain kept on a saying, it would take extreme tolls on a woman -- the marine kept on saying, it would take extreme tolls on women. most times, a male soldier will end up pulling some slack over time -- day in and day out. the last, it -- comment is, i'm not sure that this is just some weakening of the military system. the economy is on the brink.
7:24am
now we may be going to this different type of military. i am not sure if there is an underlying purpose for this. i do not think -- they do great, there are great roles for women in the military, but i do not think this will work. host: thank you for the call. on our facebook page -- from our twitter page, there is this -- one more call on this topic, and then we will turn our attention to the senate yesterday -- dorothy from baltimore, good morning. caller: i am glad i am a woman on your expressing my views. women should not be in infantry.
7:25am
absolutely not. host: why? caller: we are not built for that. men and women action not be in close contact like that. it will not work. it simply will not work. it is in our nature. manpower -- men are attracted to women. that is a fact that cannot be in -- ignored. we're not physically build to do that. we can do things, i am not trying to down women. we are not meant. -=- -- men. host: the pentagon of lifting the ban on women to serve on the front lines. the headline from "the huffington post" -- ryan grimm joins us. you write that the senate
7:26am
modestly occurred filibuster's. essentially, what did they agree to? caller: what they agreed to is something, a series of steps that will quicken the pace of legislation in the senate. there has been a battle raging for the last couple of years over how they would rewrite the rules of the senate this chamber. there were two separate objectives that slightly overlap. one is that progressive senators wanted a higher quality of legislation, it wanted more progressive legislation to be able to get through, and a requirement of getting 60 votes rather than a simple majority was standing in the way. for somebody like majority leader harry reid -- harry reid, it was the volume of legislation. he thought the chamber was too backed up by the number of bills. under the current system, it could take an entire week to get legislation through, even if it had a near majority support, because of all the different
7:27am
rules involving 30 hours a post- cloture time, and intervening day, another cloture vote, and a cloture vote before it goes to committee. the next thing you know, an entire week of the senate floor time has been chewed up. there are only two years. they take a summer stock. they take plenty of time off. that meant there was a strike -- strict limitation on the amount of legislation that could get through. that has led to judicial vacancies that are at crisis levels. executive vacancies that are at crisis levels. a ton of legislation that i wanted to get to, but they ran out of time. it focused on the volume, rather than the quality. there'll be a 60-vote threshold, but it will move quicker picker -- cooker. -- quicker. host: i want to share with you another headline from "the hill"
7:28am
-- can you touch on that point? caller: the progress of senators led by jeff merkley and backed by a huge collection of progressive groups and labor unions wanted to change what they call the silent filibuster, which is where one senator can object to a bill and leave the senate floor and it is done. he does not have to stand there and do a mr. smith-style filibuster. the wanted to change that. they want to say, we will leave at the threshold at 60, but the minority has to stand there, look up at the c-span camera, and tell the entire country white is that they are objecting to this. -- why it is that they are
7:29am
objecting to this. they did not get this provision. that is why labor unions and liberals are upset. the way it went down -- there was a tremendous amount of support among democrats to go the extreme right. harry reid went to mitch mcconnell and said, you have to go choices, here is a modest set of reforms we can do in a bipartisan sort of way, which is good for the long-term health of the senate, but you reject it, here is a package of more aggressive reforms that i will take to the floor and i will ram through with 51 votes. the choice is yours, mitch. which ended up choosing choice -- mitch ended up chooses a, to preserve the silent filibuster. host: 1 other headline from a "roll call," with what senate
7:30am
leaders might be dealing with, specifically with regard to mitch mcconnell, where does this put him as republican leader in the senate? caller: it is another example of him compromising with democrats. to the extent that there are strong elements of the tea party in kentucky that think there should be no compromise, that will hurt him. i suspect that he has his eye towards the general election, that he does not see his advantage in being as obstructionist as he was the last two years. he has an obvious advantage in kentucky. it is a red state. it is possible that there could be a democrat that could come up, if there is too much frustration. he is the senate, as much as harry reid is, because he is a
7:31am
party leader. congress's approval rating is in the single digits. that is not exactly something you want when you're going before voters. the more he can look reasonable, the better he looks. host: ryan grim, explaining some of the changes to the filibuster rule. he is the washington bureau chief for the -- for "the huffington post." back to your calls -- we're focusing on the pentagon lifting the ban on combat roles for women. on twitter -- from our facebook page -- tracey says --
7:32am
sac joins us from philadelphia, good morning, on the democrats' line. -- zach joins us from philadelphia, good morning, on the democrats' line. caller: when we look at the labor market, allowing men and women to serve together, it will have huge benefits for them. that is what i will say about that. host: from "the washington post, this editorial --
7:33am
here is more from defense secretary leon panetta yesterday making the announcement official at the pentagon. >> in early 2012, we announced a series of modifications to that rule. it opened up more than 14,000 new positions to women. that included positions that are co-located with ground combat units and certain positions and ground combat units below the battalion level. these changes have been implemented, and the experience has been very positive. every time i had visited the war zone, every time i have met with troops, reviewed military operations, and talked to wounded warriors, i have been impressed with the fact that everyone, everyone, men and
7:34am
women alike, everyone is committed to doing the job. they are fighting and dying together. the time has come for our policies and to recognize that reality. host: from yesterday's announcement at the pentagon, and this from our twitter feed -- of's share with you the list countries that allow women in close combat operations. leslie joins us from washburn, maine. caller: served in vietnam in 1967. i was 20 years old. i came back, and i only weighed 140 pounds. i did 23 years. when i was 50, i could do it 70 pushups. when i was in parachute school at age 38, all the girls except for one or not any good at it.
7:35am
it is not physically feasible for them to do it. host: thank you for the call. this is inside the washington post -- next is a caller from jamaica, new york. lucille, good morning. caller: i would like to say that throughout history they said that women cannot be doctors, they cannot do this, or that. the russians used women to fight during world war ii, and they seemed to be very effective against the nazis. i'm sure that the russians are happy that they had these women. they used to say the same thing about black soldiers, that they would not be able to fit in well with the army as it once was. as modern as we are, people have such old-fashioned ideas that women should have an apron on, in the house.
7:36am
people not want to change from that mode. time is moving on. all the nations are using women. we need to as well. i hope they continue on and do the best they can with it. host: thank you for the call. let me share with you to go other headlines -- this is from "the washington post" --
7:37am
the washington post points out -- that is from the front page. allen joins us from tennessee, good morning. caller: i think is fine for women to be in combat. i did two tours in iraq. the women were right up there with the men. before they make a change like that, they should change what is already in place, the physical standards in the military. they already have a push up requirement, set up requirement, all these physical requirements, and they are less for women than men. i think is fine to go ahead and take this step. before they do that, they should make what is already unequal equal. host: thank you for the call. inside ""usa today",", marking
7:38am
the 40th anniversary -- inside "usa today," -- the march for life will take place. this is tens of thousands who marched in january of 2011. it is expected to be along the national mall this year, marking the 40th anniversary of the roe v wade decision. charlie joins us from new york, on the republican line. caller: good morning. one morning, the first sergeant announced there were eliminations from the pt test. women could not do it. if you cannot pass your pt test, you cannot be promoted. do not give me the lie that
7:39am
standards are not going to be lowered. they will be. the problem is, we no longer have generals like george patton, matthew ridgway, curtis lemay, and douglas macarthur. that is the problem. host:, for the call, charlie. this is a headline based on the report looking at the issue of sexual harassment in the military and the focus of airforce leaders focusing on culture -- yesterday, general dempsey was
7:40am
asked about that culture of seco -- sexual harassment in the military. this is a portion of what he had to say. >> i believe it is because we have had separate classes of military personnel, at some level. it is far more complicated than that. when you had one part of the population that is designated as warriors, and another part that is designated as something else, i think that disparity begins to establish a psychology that in some cases led to that environment. i have to believe that the more we can treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally. host: from yesterday's news conference at the pentagon, and our entire programming is on c- span.org -- we welcome our radio listeners as well. there was this from robert --
7:41am
this was based on the clip we just showed you, from the army officer from the marine corps. we will go to robert from north carolina, a democrat. caller: i am a combat veteran of korea and vietnam. i will cut it short. they were talking about the all volunteer army. there were trying to get women into the ranks. my sister -- [indiscernible] one thing i found out, what we went through in vietnam and korea, it was for men and went
7:42am
-- and men only. yes, they served in different areas such as the medical field, but in combat, no. host: ok, thank you for the call. the story inside the new york times -- there are similar stories around the country. -- a couple of points --
7:43am
back to your calls. jesse in muskegon, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i have a daughter in the military, and her experience was -- [indiscernible] a lot of women to go into the military and have a bad experience, with sexual harrassment. we have to be careful with the military.
7:44am
it shouldn't be happening. can i make another comment? host: sure. caller: i think some of these people are phonies. we have guns that kill more people -- [indiscernible] you never seen things like that. host: thank you for the call. jack has this on our twitter page -- a couple of other headlines. the announcement coming from the state dining room in the white -- the president tapping
7:45am
mary jo white for increased policing of wall street. there was this headline from inside the new york post -- this points out that the regulatory forecast for wall street is in -- the cold snap is over. the character of mary jo white from the new york post this morning. this from "the washington post" -- he was at the president plus take for heading up the consumer financial protection bureau. he could taste a tough ride as his nomination moves through the u.s. senate. leonard joins us from michigan, as the pentagon wants a ban on women in combat. caller: good morning. i have no objection with women going into the military or any field that is military-base.
7:46am
-- military-based. if ohlman wants to join, that is our option as assistant -- as a citizen. -- if a woman wants to join, that is our option as a citizen. the military understands -- women have the knowledge, the same as men, and they need to grow with that. they need to keep going forward to help the people and understand other things. there will be other situations. if there is one other comment i can make about the electoral votes of ohio, michigan, i think that all our races, electoral races should be based on the people's vote. host: no electoral college vote
7:47am
at all? caller: no, it should be the people's vote. host: thank you for the call. republicans looking for a change in the electoral college vote. that is something we will ask bill kristol in a moment. one last week -- tweet -- thank you to all of you for sharing your thoughts and comments on the pentagon lifting the ban on women in combat. coming up, we'll turn our attention to politics and some of the efforts of bill kristol of the weekly standard. look at what is next for republicans and the president has he embarks on a second term. later, we will turn our attention to the issue of gay rights. then, america by the numbers, a look at the drought in this country and its impact on food prices. that is coming up on c-span's "washington journal."
7:48am
we are back in just a moment. ♪ >> one of the key themes for any exhibition on the civil war are the twin issues of abolition and emancipation. we're fortunate that they came of age when they did because between the two of them, they make issues around emancipation and abolition issues around human rights and american freedom and a general non-race- specific level. i will go through every iconographic piece of information that johnson put in this picture. i will summarize ad-buy saying that if you pay attention to the
7:49am
top half as well as the bottom half, what you get is a white cat blinking in a better way to and a black one holding a lights in a child. there is a letter going to the bedroom window of to the bedroom wing of the big house and a piece of fabric coming out of the better winter -- window. there is a restaurant here. as one 19th century reviewer said, researchers have had it in the evenings of finding a perch and calling to head to spend the night with them. if you start adding up all the ins and outs, and you look at the white girl entering the black -- the backyard with the black woman checking it out, some viewers say, she's coming to listen to the music. she's not here to listen to the music. nobody is paying attention to her. is she a product of one of those
7:50am
liaisons? >> the civil war and its influence on american artists. this is on c-span 3 at 7:00 p.m. eastern on sunday. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back the founder and editor of the weekly standard, bill kristol, a republican party strategist, a former chief of staff to the beat -- to the bush administration. bobby tyndall, we need to stop doing -- stop being the stupid party. -- bobby jindal, we need to stop being the stupid party. guest: i like body -- bobby jindal. people in the obama
7:51am
administration cleave bacon designed to help your system from scratch from washington. i would defend stupidity to some degree, but i think there has been an excess of it on the republican side in the past few years. i think bobby jindal -- the proof is in the pudding. he has been an incredible governor of a state that was not in good shape when he took over. republican governors, republican elected officials need to prove it that conservative policies work. host: reince priebus indicated that he is authorizing an autopsy, in trying to figure out what happened last november. what happened? what would you check out -- what would you tell the chairman of the and art critic of the rnc? guest: i would say do not panic. barack obama 1 -- won the financial crisis in 20 -- 2008.
7:52am
it is not as if we're talking ronald reagan in 1984. republicans have the house. they did not do as well as they might have done. the economy was a little bit better than republicans assumed. they're wrong to think that they could make it a referendum on the economy. they did not talk about the foreign policy, they did not even have a positive economic plan. they said it will be a referendum on an unsatisfactory referendum -- unsatisfactory performance of the incumbent. the stock market was stronger. it was just good enough to drag president obama across the finish line. i think there's plenty to look at. there are plenty of problems. project orca, the get-out-the- vote project. the message is much too limited,
7:53am
too smug, too assumed that people would reject liberal policies because we said they were liberal. the failure to provide a positive reforming conservative agenda. where was the romney health care plan, the positive plan, not just or peeling -- repealing obamacare? i do think scott walker, sam brownback, bob jindal, that is where you alcee conservative principles govern. in washington, a half to boast -- both oppose the obama administration, collaborate, and in the house, they have to figure out what it means to the beat -- to be the majority of one body of congress while the presidency and other house and
7:54am
congress is held by the other party. >> in the last five elections, in four of the 5, republicans have not had a majority of votes. even though george w. bush served two terms, he did not get a majority in 2000 and barely got one in 2004? >> i'm not one to minimize the danger and challenge of the republican party. losing 25 senate seats this year -- president obama only got 51% of the vote. the economy is looking great. a lot of democratic incumbents looked people ribble. the senate cannot be gerrymandered. it looked like a clean a snapshot of the country. for republicans to win 8 waterboarded -- while democrats one -- republicans will 8 and
7:55am
democrats won 25, that is dangerous. we need to figure out what went wrong in 2012. i'm not for endless naval gazing. there are plenty of fights to be had. where can we cooperate with president obama? in some ways, you lose an election, and you think about it for a few months. and you get back right on the horse and try to start writing again and figure out what we believe and and what fights we want to have and what policies we want to -- want to propose. host: politico wrote about you -- what have you been doing? guest: it is interesting to learn that is what i have been doing. i can start all i want.
7:56am
other people have to decide what they want to stand for. host: it says that bill crystal and his allies have been talking about starting reformist organization to recruit republican fiscal policies and champion rising generation of republicans -- guest: i'm involved with the weekly standard and a few other organizations. we have been putting the chuck hagel nomination for the secretary of defense. also less partisan activities, foreign policy, try to make sure the u.s. stays strong, even though i believe president obama's policies are taking us in the wrong direction. i have talked to people about restarting a small republican guard from 1994 -- group from 1994, the project for republican future, which tried -- party was a little exhausted, the conservative movement was
7:57am
exhausted, it tried to reinvigorate things. it worked for gingrich. it opposed the clinton health care plan. now is the time to think about the republican future to make sure -- there are many good ideas out there, national affairs, the national review, they are publishing interesting positive policy agendas for getting us out of the whole we are in on that -- on debt, deficit, reforming health care, financial services, foreign policies. there are a lot of good young politicians. i'm not sure anybody is going around the country and talking to younker -- younger voters and officials who might want to run and getting them in touch with the intakes and magazines. i do not want to compete with the rnc or any huge organizations, the super pacs,
7:58am
but i think there is more to be done in getting the paul ryans of the world, the scott walkers, finding a before the run, helping them to run, publicizing what they're doing. we know enough about what boby jindal has done in louisiana -- bobby jindal has done in louisiana. he has a great communications guy. their focus on weighs in. -- they are focused on louisiana. host: you, paul ryan, and others keep thinking they lost the election because of technology -- that was on twitter. guest: i agree that was not the case. it was kind of a disgrace. a multi hundred million dollar
7:59am
campaign, you might test it and make sure that it actually works. it is too easy for me to sit here and say it, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars, but the election results be any different? would mitt romney have one -- have wobble fewer states? -- won fewer states? i do not think that is the fundamental problem. i would recommend a fresh look at the whole world of republican consultants and operatives. many of whom are my friends, but there might be some generational changes there. fundamentally, is about ideas and message and candidates. that is host: you brought up the nomination of chuck hagel. he was asked about some of the opposition.
8:00am
and senator john kerry, designated to be the secretary of state, responded. here's a portion from yesterday's confirmation hearings. [video clip] >> i know chuck hagel. he is a strong, patriotic former senator and he will be a strong secretary of defense. i have dealt with him in a number of areas. he's been ahead of the atlantic council. some of the things -- and of the efforts to color his approach on some of these things don't do justice. host: you and many others are in opposition to his nomination. guest: i've been urging president obama not to nominate
8:01am
chuck hagel for secretary of defense. there are plenty of mainstream and moderate to liberal democrats as well. president obama won the election and is entitled to have john kerry as secretary of defense. we're not making a fuss about that at all. -- secretary of state, rather. chuck hagel is not in the mainstream. i agree with john kerry that chuck hagel was a strong, patriotic former senator, reason to become secretary of defense. his defense of him was pretty lame. he could not say that chuck hagel was a leader in the senate. is a hagel distillation? -- where is a hagel legislation?
8:02am
chuck hagel has no noble speeches or doctrines or ideas associated with him. except he was one of two senators to vote against iran sanctions, to not have the iranian revolutionary guard designated as a terrorist hezbollahon or four to be designated a terrorist organization. and has accused people of being a jewish lobby. i think he's not a good candidate. is not a very distinguished candidates for secretary of defense. he is not of the stature of leon panetta or bob gates or dick cheney or any of the people will
8:03am
ever been secretary of defense over the years. many of them are democrats. there are people in the democratic party who served in the clinton defense department to the obama defense thewho management experience, which will be awfully important as there are budget constraints. -- people with management experience. he said that we should not be threatening the use of force. the presidenthy selected chuck hagel. maybe likes him personally. he was a mentor to him when he was a senator. it is really a mistake. it's not bipartisan. i think t it think too late.
8:04am
chance that chuck hagel will be defeated. a huge majority of republicans will oppose him. the question is what democrats will do. many democrats are asking, aren't there no democrdemocratid have appointed? host: which side will it come down? guest: chuck hagel supported him in 200, but i think he will vote against him. >> we're talking with bill kristol. robert is on the democratic line from new jersey. caller: how are you gentlemen? you are looking well. i am a democrat, but i have
8:05am
always liked bill kristol. i've always read the weekly standard. he is a common sense, down to earth republican that i really admire and respect. i watch him off and on fox news sunday. i always want to hear what he has to say, because he speaks to the things that i really agree with. here i am a democrat saying this. guest: you are also my cousin, but we don't after say that on the air. thank you for the kind words. i do happened to of a couple of cousins or democratic. caller: one of the things about this democratic party is that it is really a very big tent. i don't call myself a blue dog democrats, because i don't believe in that language, but i am a more conservative democrat.
8:06am
let me give you guys this briefly. when chris christie ran for governor of the state news jersey, i did not vote for him, because i did not know anything about him. i had never heard of him and i follow politics pretty closely. i was like, who is this guy? i felt like i might a twisted my vote. i was not sure. but it is one of the things i regret, because chris christie is a fabulous governor of the state of new jersey. i regret that i did not vote for him. he has my full support. i cannot wait to cast my vote for him when he runs again. and it is because he is a common-sense republican, a common sense thinker. i would not put bobby jindal in that category right now because of the and nice words he has said lately. you and people like chris christie, you guys have been a
8:07am
common-sense conservative voices that just makes sense to people like me. if the republican party can get past the name calling and past the petty fights and get back to real honest discussions and pragmatic discussions about things, they will be able to grow. a personal point of privilege, steve, many people call c-span in the morning and always say thank you for c-span and other i think that's good, but i think this c-span announcers and commentators like yourself should spend more time in thanking the people for calling c-span, because they do take a little portion of our money each month to keep you guys running. but there should be more thanksgiving to the callers. we need to just thank each other. thank you guys. host: thank you for a phone
8:08am
call, robert. let me use his point to go back to something you wrote about earlier this week. "the republican party in opposition." you point to patrick moynihan of new york, why is the model for the republican party today? guest: he wrote an article in 1975 in which he said -- he had just come back from being ambassador to india -- he said, it is unusual for the u.s. to think of itself as being in opposition to international bodies like the united nations, so crucial in creating these bodies, and shaping them, but it was clear by the mid-70s the u.s. was in opposition to much of the third world and to the soviet bloc. he said let's go with the opposition and we will do it cheerfully and we will stay in our principles and find people to work with and we will not be embarrassed to say i'm sorry, that's unacceptable, even if we
8:09am
are in a small minority. all but a bad guidance is useful for the republican party which does not control washington even though it controls the house, should not kid itself that it can get a lot done in the house. i am for a responsible opposition. in the states where republicans do have governors and state legislatures, there republicans have to govern seriously. chris christie is one of the unsuccessful republican governors looks like he has a very good chance of getting reelected in a democratic state that obama has carried. the caller said the democrats are big tent. republicans are as well. i am -- it is hard to know -- no
8:10am
one will say the party should do this or the party should get rid of those people or tell those people to be quiet. that's not the way politics works in america. emerged and they're the ones that help shape it. sometimes they do it contrary to expectations. most people thought it would be clinton in 2008 - -a clinton ian formula, but obama did not do it that way. i give him credit for having the courage of his convictions and had a theory of how okey could could win and he did it. i'm not sure bobby jindal's model is the right model for chris christie. -- or chris christie.
8:11am
it is important to take risks to be contrarian and to accept the fact the republican party will have some different voices. there will be people will say this issue is fundamental and others will say we need to compromise on that one and draw the line here. obviously, we still make arguments and tried to persuade people that this is not the right fight to have. but you have to accept it will be a certain amount of disagreement among conservatives and republicans. it's chaos after you lose two presidential elections in a row and that can be healthy. a little creative destruction, creative chaos would not be a bad thing for the republican party. the governors are doing things differently. many republican governors will have success stories in terms of policy and politics. host: i want to and share with
8:12am
you a couple of cover stories. this is the weekly standard -- and from last week, a character -- caricature of senator harry reid. >> our artist has been working with us on a free-lance basis for years. we talk about what the image should be and how it should be executed. they make the image funnier or sharper in some ways or clever er than we do when we just sit around office thinking about it. so i think our covers are good. so we talk about what obama is doing in areas where he cannot
8:13am
get legislation through congress. it is important. it tells republicans in the house that this is a place where perhaps you can make a difference. regulations are only issued pursuant to legislation, so legislation comes regulation. republicans could stop or override some of these regulations, and maybe some democrats will go along. the epa and some other regulations are pretty hostile to small business, the energy production. and other are democrats or not really on board. alternative energy agenda that the obama administration is pursuing as well. and on health care, there are particular parts of obamacare that congress may be able to slow down or stop. the piece is mostly a report on what the administration is doing, but it gives guidance to congress. one thing republicans in congress needs to think about is what they can accomplish in by sized chunks. there will not change health
8:14am
care in a conservative direction in the next four years or reform entitlements. can they accomplished a few good things that also point the way towards bigger things later? i thing maybe they can. host: our guest is bill kristol. our next call is from frederick, maryland, peter is on the republican line. thanks for waiting. caller: how are things? host: fine. sounds like you're listening to us on c-span radio. caller: yes, sir. but itod to listen to, plays havoc on my blood pressure. republicans have been losing for 30 years or more. they are up against a very liberal education system as well as a very liberal media in general. my expectation with kids coming out of high school or college this sort of seem to think the government just passed the money and gives it out. if they don't seem to realize until much later in life that
8:15am
they're taking my money and giving it out. so i think it's an educational problem, much deeper than whether a candidate is running in a particular town. thanks for c-span. host: peter, thanks for the call. guest: conservatives have a lot of work to do in the media and in education. the media situation is a lot more balanced than 20 years ago or 30 years ago. a couple of major newspapers and magazines have collapsed. young people can access a ton of points of view and a lot of data and information and that is a healthy thing. people complain about the internet and all of these blogs and what happened to the good old days when you had serious editors manning the phones? i think the current situation is much healthier for a vigorous democracy and there's a lot of good stuff out there. if we have a piece on our
8:16am
website, a woman who was a marine gunnery sergeant for 20 years, explaining why women in combat would be a very bad idea. i don't know her and did not know her. we checked or out to make sure she is so she says she is. that's the kind of thing that would not have happened in the old days when you had better commission and his friends to write pieces. in some ways it is a problem of the media being a chokehold on information has diminished a lot in the last 20 or 30 years. i think you'll see something similar now an education, especially in higher education. the oligarchy of the education society is about to collapse, partly due to the internet where people are learning in more different ways from other people. about progressic there over the next 10 or 20 years. host: this is from the atlantic
8:17am
magazine -- he said, "in the last decade, even the places where republicans wanted to spread liberty, but turned into a debacle. they had dubious notion of what the military could accomplish. they fail to execute. is stubbornly denied anything was amiss. as a result, republicans, especially ne-yo conservatives, lost the trust of american voters." guest: i don't know what those places are. i guess most people were against fighting in afghanistan and we had a limited footprint over there for most of the bush administration. that was not the place where we pursued a neoconservative firm policy. the only place on iraq. one war in iraq which i will
8:18am
defend to this day, and which we succeeded. by the end of 2008 we had won the war, thanks to the troops surged, which chuck hagel po opposed. we had a reasonably stable democratic system. we were about huge waves of reform in the middle east. the incredible retreat that's now underway by the united states throughout the world, which i think as an opportunity to do a huge amount of damage. historians may judge bush on policy against obama, the places where it's going downhill is where the president's own instincts are withdrawal and
8:19am
retreat and a light footprint have been in effect. is syria better than iraq? or libya, where we just a little bombing and get out so the terrorists can take over? iraqis lost a lot of lives and americans did as well. but in 2008 iraq was a lot better off than syria or libya are today. we may not have capitalized on the successes over there. i'm happy to defend -- i was a big critic of donald rumsfeld. i thought we should of had a lot more troops over there and i agree that they did not execute well enough. i'm afraid we will pay a big into on what's being put effect under the obama administration. what chuck hagel embodies and the defense even to a greater degree than john kerry or others in the obama national security team.
8:20am
host: did you ever consider running for public office? guest: not much. i would not say there was a huge groundswell of demand for mea. host: if you were in elected office, where jobs would you want? guest: i've always focused on federal issues or national issues, so i don't think i would be a good state legislator or governor. i'm no expert on state governments. i'm dam well versed in front policy, so i think the senate would be excited if i could shape foreign policy. the places i've worked with the executive branch. -- i am well-versed in foreign policy. you can make changes across a
8:21am
broad spectrum of area. host: james is on the phone in dallas on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: i want to ask why his party always lies on the president? and what did you all given to harry reid to sell out the president yesterday? host: thanks for the call, james. the issue on the filibuster. guest: i am generally against streamlining legislation. i don't exactly understand what the compromise was or what the alternatives were. so i don't know if harry reid sold-out the president or not. he was elected by his fellow senators with a democratic majority.
8:22am
it took me a little while to realize this. because they are in the same party does not mean they work for you. every reed does not work for barack obama. -- harry reid does not work for barack obama. we criticize the president, but we have been criticizing nancy pelosi and harry reid equally. i have supported president obama on things such as in afghanistan, but i wish he had not to undercut it by announcing the withdrawal. there are few areas that i think we could have bipartisan agreement over the next months and i hope we do, for the good of the country. i'm expecting mostly opposition, but partly because of the president. some say his second inaugural speech was very ideological.
8:23am
he's entitled, if he thinks it's the right thing for the country. if what he's doing by pushing this broad agenda on the military and foreign-policy and refusing to entitlements, he is setting up a situation where there will be a lot of opposition. honest opposition on policy grounds from conservatives over the next couple years. host: this is from one of our viewers -- guest: i think maybe they should. that stuck inect my head, a project for the future. we should look at the primary process, which the party does not control. the debates, the election process for the candidates. it's hard to make a case that it is really the best process. it's not set up to produce the best nominee for president, for
8:24am
the republicans. maybe the democrats are happy with the process. host: in the washington post -- guest: it would help republicans because they would get some votes rather than no votes. a winner-take-all state or electoral college process served the country well. cause i-constitutional arrangements are a little murky. -- quasiconstitution.
8:25am
in some states there really are no presidential campaigns. like the larger states like texas. we have red states and blue states that seemed prpretty reliably one party or the other, so they don't really spend on campaigning in those areas. last fall you cannot turn on the tv in virginia without seeing ads. especially when the -- especially when the obama ads were better than the romney ads. it was weird when you go to visit people in new york or los angeles. they are not actually experiencing the campaign. if you went to a congressional district, then you would go
8:26am
fight in california, because republicans could win 20 out the hobbi54. i'm normally reluctant to tamper with these long standing institutions and practices, but there might be case in this instance for at least. thinking least. host: your comments on speaker boehner, a first one to go to danny joining us on the democratic line. good morning. caller: hello. you put harry reid on the cover. if you look up the words chicken hawk and neocon, there's a picture of bill kristol. the only people who were surprised that president obama won the election were fox news
8:27am
viewers. host: thanks for the call. guest: i was not surprised. i thought romney had a chance, and he was all a little short at the end. if the viewer does not want to watch fox news, he has other options. host: our next caller is from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. the way i perturbed about william kristol was i got mixed up with the comedian billy crystal. guest: it happens all the time. caller: when billy crystal goes on his long rants, he actually says some things that are funny. the one funny thing you said the is you thought we should have sent more troops into iraq. you must be the only one i have ever read say that. guest: we did send more troops in 2007.
8:28am
the surge worked incredibly well and casualties were extremely low by the end of 2008 of one they had been very high in 2006. i'm not the only person who have that analysis of what went wrong. caller: so you think perhaps the same thing should of been implemented in libya and syria where we just did some bombing in libya and then turned it over to terrorists? when i have to say is instead of talking so much, part of the leaders and spin doctors of the republican party should listen to the republicans. many republicans stayed home because they did not like the way the process was run. there were many libertarian- minded republicans that said we will have to have a big tent. you have a fraction between neocons like yourself and the libertarian-minded in the republican party. host: we will get a response.
8:29am
guest: paul did well. he was able to build a big grass roots group of supporters. he got votes, but not enough votes to be a significant factor. in end it was 80% of the vote going to romney. those were the voters. it was not me deciding who would be the nominee. grand ball is now in the senate. i give him credit for a very intelligent campaign in kentucky. protege.h mcconnell's grand ball has been trying to articulate this agenda. i think he will run for president in 2016. i don't think i will agree with him on all issues and maybe not on most issues-issues- rand paul has been trying to articulate
8:30am
his agenda. you make your case and you have to live with the consequences. i'm happy to say that intervening is risky and dangerous and leads to a young men and women getting wounded and killed and it can sometimes go wrong, but we have to think about the consequences of not intervening and what happens and what the world looks like in two years or 10 years if we let things fall apart around the world. that is an honest policy debate. paul will have it over the next couple years with marco rubio and others in the senate. there will be more rand paul type candidates running. i think it's healthy for the party to have the debate. i agree with the caller more than he would think. i have never been for shutting down debate or ruling out different points of view in the party. i think a help the party does challenge its own assumptions. in this case i really think we
8:31am
will see out of president obama the great cost from retreating from the world. host: if he runs, marco rubio would have to give up his senate seat. in the wall street journal -- she writes that it will take a stand unity to fight president obama. can the gop in washington now develop those things? guest: i don't think we can assume there will be unity.
8:32am
you should not just cast a vote for the sake of unity. there are some issues where you can have unity, on procedural votes. i think people can modify their views for the sake of unity. i agree with what peggy says. when the president said you did not build that, that was corrected jumped on it. i think the romney response was mistaken at. the romney response was i did build it. the ones who built it was us. i'm all for celebrating our entrepreneurs, they contribute a
8:33am
lot to the country, but they also have a ton of people who work for them and with them. you have a lot of americans who don't get up and the morning and say i want to be steve jobs or bill gates. they say i want to go to work and do a good job for my employer and i hope to move up in the company and support my family and i hope my kids to better than i will and i contribute to my church and my community, i am a nurse or a soldier or a teacher or cop, or private-sector employees. those people contribute an awful lot to this country too. romney never seemed to appreciate the degree to which you have to speak for and to those people and not just to their boss. he was more concerned about the guy who was the owner of the small business than the people working for the small business. it's important that republicans have an agenda that speaks to the economic needs and
8:34am
challenges facing the middle class. they have not had a great 10 or 20 years. people at the very top have done well. people at the very bottom have been supported adequately by the safety net. the middle class has been crunched. and on health care, it's not just a matter of getting rid of obamacare, which i am for. if we have more effective and efficient health care in this country, we will save a lot of money for middle-class families, of which could then go to educating their kids or building up their savings. tax reform, that is also important for conservatives and republicans. host: a question from our viewer -- guest: tom cotten, the congressman from arkansas, a friend of mine. he went to harvard, which i went
8:35am
to, so i'm biased. he went to harvard law school, which i don't hold against him. he volunteered for the army in 2004, served as an officer in iraq and afghanistan, work for is that business a while, had a close primary against an aggressive womaperson. but he won. there he is, a first term congressman in the house. he will be able to weigh in on the chuck hagel nomination. he has spoken eloquently on that. he is a real rising star in the house. he is already respected by his peers. he was involved with the speaker, paul ryan, and others, in trying to devise a tactical maneuver to get the debt ceiling moved back and to able to deal
8:36am
with sequester. he will have a tough decision in a few months. there's pressure on him in arkansas to run for senate in 2014 against price yoryor, a vulnerable democrats. to run for the senate right after you got into the house, it's a little fast. he may be able to accomplish more. he is a rising star in the party. there have been others as well. there are people thinking of running and some ran and lost the first time. that part about the republican future i'm very encouraged by, the younger candidates. we can find a lot more if we put in a little more effort. i think it's time for generational change in the republican party. it is a party that's
8:37am
conservative. at least at the presidential level we keep nominating the next in line guy, a 65-year-old guy who ran last time but did not quite make it and gets nominated. they are impressive individuals, but it's a kind of pattern of dole and mccain and it's tough to compete with barack obama. that has been true somewhat at the state level until recently. denominates the senate majority leader. you get some good people that way, a lot of the more innovative governors have been younger people who jumped the line and said i have good ideas about running even if it's not my turn. i would be interested in encouraging more people to run even if it's not return. think of the model of obama who ran for the house and lost and was then running for president as a young man but did not
8:38am
differ to hillary clinton or all the others running. republicans could use a little bit more that, political entrepreneurship, among young candidates and potential candidates. host: do you think paul ryan will run? guest: i don't know, but he's awfully impressive. he did well as a vice- presidential candidate. i think it helps begin the process of making the republican party a much younger, more forward-looking party. host: mike from california. caller: good morning. thanks for in lively and thoughtful commentary. i have a slightly different take on the romney's loss. the election was framed by the social conservatives and the obama campus as the makers versus the takers. there was criticism of the people, at least 47% of the people, versus criticism of the system or the policy, the
8:39am
marxist redistribution policy. each according to his need. the people are not moved by politicians who enjoy a moral authority not quite up to cockroaches. guest: i very much agree that the makers slashed takers formulation is not helpful. it could be accurate in very limited ways. but if you're talking about all the people on medicare and social security as the 47%, those are programs people paid into. these are people who are not dependent on government through any fault of their own. people pay into the system and they get social security in old age and then medicare to take care of their health after they reach a certain age. it's not the fault of elderly people. a 47% video, the famous video that was used in many ads by
8:40am
obama in virginia. it did a lot of damage. it also reflects a problem in the republic in party. there are genuine problems with a welfare state and with social dependency and those are legitimate issues to raise. but there's a certain attitude amongst some in the republican party, the leaks, and financial elite, are people out there who depend on government and that they just want more. benefiting from crony capitalism. that they did not make all their money on just individual efforts. they could use more empathy for people who are struggling and who taped advantage of
8:41am
government programs to which they legally have access. many of them are good programs like the gi bill and student loans. they need reforms, but in principle it's not a bad idea to help lower income people get to college and to help with an upward mobility. the gi bill incentive was a good thing and is a very good practice. i do think republicans and conservatives need to be careful about this kind of simple- minded economic elitism that looks down on working class or middle class americans. host: here's a portion of speaker john maynard earlier this week here in washington. [video clip] >> given what we heard yesterday about the president's vision for his second term, it's pretty clear to me and should be clear to you that he knows he cannot do any of that as long as the
8:42am
house is controlled by republicans. so we are expecting over the he the2 months to be t focus of the administration as they attempt to annihilate the republican party. i do believe that is their goal. to shove us into the dustbin of history. host: your thoughts? guest: i imagine president obama would like to reduce the influence and authority and members of the republican party. i don't know if this is legitimate for a republican leader to make such a statement. i think the republicans should spend less time complaining about president obama and his intentions and more time to thinking about what they can solve and where they can work with him and where they really can fight and should fight him and really try to do some good for the country by mitigating
8:43am
the damage he is doing. and where they cannot mitigate the damage, they can set a fire say we are confident the public will see the failure of president obama's policies and we will get a real alternative. host: this tweet -- jeb bush of florida has this in the wall street journal this morning on solving the immigration puzzle. jeb bush says there is no line. guest: i would be with him. and i thought that romney's attacks on rick perry and newt gingrich were not fair on immigration. mitt romney was supposed to be the moderate candidate and rick
8:44am
perry was the right-winger. rick perry was the one who was more forward-looking and more liberal on immigration, which would have served the party better. romney by pandering to what he thought or parts of the republican base on immigration. when he mentioned self- deportation. and criticizing a scheme that they have in texas. i am for immigration reform. it is an issue where republicans should try to work with the president. it would be helpful for the country. marco rubio seems to be taking a lead on that and paul ryan is working with him. it will be a test of whether president obama really wants to achieve something. the best way for republicans to avoid letting president obama to cause trouble for republicans is for republicans to have an aggressive and positive agenda.
8:45am
host: bill kristol, a founder of the weekly standard. what is the cover story this week? guest: a very good piece on human rights commissions around the country, the bodies in different cities which are causing a lot of trouble for people who just want to say what they believe and run businesses the way they want. host: thanks for stopping by. when we come back we will turn our attention to the issue of the president's comments about gays and lesbians with kevin cathcart, joining us. later, america by the numbers as we look at our friday segment. u.s. food prices and the drought, the impact it's having on the price you pay a gross restore. it's friday, january 25. washington journal continues in a moment. [video clip] >> what's the best training for policemen? >> the best train you can get to become a really good police officer and understand what it's all about, develop sources,
8:46am
learn how to use intelligence information, learn how to leverage relationships in the community. that's the key. people in the community trust you, they will tell you things that are happening that are not yet crimes so that you can intervene. it will tell you all about how to do it. i have learned the most in my career from those relationships. >> from high school dropout and single mother to the young as police chief in washington d.c. history. more with cathy lanier sunday nights at 8:00 on c-span. >> personal finance the starts in the 1930's with sylvia porter. it is a spinoff out of the self- help movement of the 1930's. the 1930's known for everything from the hard economic times, you see everything from alcoholics anonymous developing to napoleo--
8:47am
fascism and communism having a strong appeal. sylvia porter was a goal is to educate people through the great depression so that it would never happen again. it is an idea that we can teach people certain skills and if they learn the skills we will all be ok. >> the dark side of the personal finance industry saturday night at 10:00 on c-span2. look for more online. like us on facebook. >> washington journal continues. host: kevin cathcart is the executive director of lamda legal, joining us from new york. thanks for being with us. guest: glad to be here.
8:48am
host: road island is the latest data and knowledge same-sex marriage, now joining the rest of the new england states. will we see this in all 50 states? guest: let's be clear about rhode island. the house of representative poe voted yesterday and the senate has not yet voted. the rhode island house voted by a very strong majority. i think the vote was 51-19 in favor of marriage equality. no one is certain what will happen in the senate. there will be a tougher road hopeful.ut i'm very a lot of work is being done on the ground in rhode island. outside rhode island, new england is solidly in the marriage equality count. host: in terms of what other states can learn from new england, what is it? guest: i think the main thing is that no one's marriages are threatened when lesbian and gay people can maryy. we have a lot of experience.
8:49am
10 years of it in massachusetts. and now in iowa and washington state, maryland, district of columbia. when this issue with the news, a lot of people were predicting all sorts of crazy things about the demise of marriage and the family. i think it's quite clear now can bearriage an strengthened by quality for gay people. host: this map gives an indication, we talk about new england, the states where a marriage is or will soon be legal. you can see all of new england and new york and rhode island expected to follow suit. in the midwest, iowa, and then the upper northwest, the vast majority of the country still has a constitutional ban on gay marriage. why is that? guest: i think there was a lot of fear in the early years of this struggle around marriage and a lot of reaction state-by-
8:50am
state so that there are a number of states that put state constitutional bans in effect. i think there are a lot of people in those states will regret those bands today. it will take a lot of work to undo them. -- bans. the tide of history is clear. we have gone 10 years from to nine states plus the district of columbia. rhode island may come on board soon. illinois as well. delaware as well. the supreme court will be grappling with the defense of marriage act and with the california marriage ban this year. there's a lot of activity. map changing. host: the presenter has done a looked at the public opinion polling. if we were asking the questioned in 2001, do you oppose allowing gays and lesbians to get married legally? the answer would of been 57%. only 35% favored allowing gays and lesbians to get married
8:51am
legally. now 10 or 11 years later, the numbers have reversed slightly. 48% favor gays and lesbians being able to get married legally. my question to you is, what has changed, what has evolved, how has this affected public opinion over the last 12-15 years? guest: a lot of things have changed. the most important part is there has been a lot more visibility of gay and lesbian couples and gay and lesbian families. and there has been a lot more discussion and debate about how we should be treated in society. the more that people across this country have had to grapple with those ideas, the more that opinions and changed. there is, also, significant differences in opinions about marital quality that are generational. if you break those polling figures down, you find the opposition tends to be stronger among older people.
8:52am
our support is enormous among younger people. every year the young people become a year older and move up in the polls. some national polls have shown support for marital quality at 52% and above. so it is definitely moving steadily. i don't think that there's anything that is going to change the way those numbers are moving, both the support and the opposition. if we look at that chart in another couple years, we will see a broader point spread, but it will be in favor of equality. host: we have had a number of tweets -- guest: it is interesting, people like to make that argument. they forget marriage also is a civil institution and has always
8:53am
been in this country. people get marriage licenses from the government. you don't have to have a religious ceremony. you can get married by a judge or at city hall. what we are talking about here is a civil marriage. barista nominations will do different things. there are many religious institutions right now that will perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. there are some that perhaps never will. that's not the issue i am concerned with. i'm concerned with what does our government do with civil marriage? it is interesting when people say you've got a number of twee ts, when people start talking now about marriage as a religious institution, no one was ever fighting against or complaining about marriage as a .ivil right until it started to look like a lesbian and gay couples were
8:54am
going to be able to equal parts take. host: kevin is the executive director of lambda legal. he previously served for the gay and lesbian advocates and defenders in boston. and was a former staff attorney with the children's law project. gary is joining us from sarasota, florida, on the democratic line. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. i was involved in a family court system for 12 years as a result of my divorce. i think that maybe a civil union -- the civil agreement might be more responsible as far as gay marriage goes. host: we will get a response. thanks for the call. guest: i think the issue for me and for enormous numbers of lgbt people around this country is what is equality and whether we should have a separate -- people
8:55am
like to say it would be equal -- but the concept of separate but equal should have been thoroughly demolished by now in our country. if marriage is going to be the main way that the government recognizes families and relationships, provides benefits, provides responsibilities, then i think we need to use the same terms and have the same concept, because one of the things that we find in states that do have unions or domestic partnerships, is most regular people on the street don't know what those are. everyone knows what marriage is. everyone understands that concept. you start creating new terms and new things, you are automatically putting us in second class positions and one in which we have to fight all the time to be recognized and have people understand what our families are. host: and a question dealing with patapsco at -- -- the tax code --
8:56am
guest: i don't even pretend to understand the tax code. the tax code is preferential for some people in some income levels and some circumstances and then other people talk about the marriage penalty under the tax code and it's not preferential. so i will stay away from the tax code, because the tax code is extremely confusing. and i don't think it's the real issue here. i'd love to see the tax code issue resolved. in the meantime, i'm much more interested in seeing lesbian and gay families be recognized and treated fairly by the government. host: president in his inaugural address earlier this week addressed the issue. the first time the word gay was used in an inaugural address. here's a portion of his speech. [video clip] >> we the people declare today
8:57am
that the most evident of truths that all of us are created equal is the star that guides us still just as it guided our forebears through seneca falls and selma and stone wall, just as it guided all those men and women who left footprints along this great mall to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone, to hear a king proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedoms of every soul on earth. [applause] it is now our generation task to carry on what those pioneers began. so our journey is not complete until our wives, mothers, daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. [cheers and applause]
8:58am
our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. [cheers and applause] host: the president's inaugural address. your reaction when you heard those words? guest: i was extremely moved. i was very sorry i had to be in new york on monday, because i really wanted to be down there in general. and when i heard those words i felt really sorry i was not there to hear them and cheer them in person. it was amazing to hear the president of the united states talk about stonewall, about gay people in the inaugural address, put stonewall in line with seneca falls and selma. these are all iconic moments in a series of civil rights movements. and they deserve to be listed
8:59am
together but are not always. so this was an amazing moment. you could hear the cheers from the people on the mall in the background. this is not just me talking. there was wide approval in the crowd, because the cheers were very loud. host: 1 happened at the stonewall inn? guest: stone wall is a gay bar in new york city. 1960's, policend raids were very common at gay bars throughout the united states, including in places like new york city. it may surprise people to know how common that was in the late 1960's. so there was a police raid on the stonewall inn, but this time instead of acquiescence by the patrons, people get arrested, people leave, this time people fought back. it